Judging the value of Meals on Wheels

To justify President Donald Trump’s aim to spend less on social services, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney declared, “We can’t spend money on programs just because they sound good.” Who can argue with that?

Not us.

Like anyone else, we want our taxpayer dollars spent wisely. Funding programs that “sound good” but don’t accomplish much seems foolish. Still, this principle is way too broad to apply to complicated budget decisions. Our research suggests that identifying the best spending choices is a lot harder than it sounds.

Assessing social service programs: Mulvaney brought up Meals on Wheels, a program that delivers meals to 2.4 million homebound seniors a year, while trying to give a good example of something funded through the Community Development Block Grant program that Trump is seeking to eliminate altogether. The grants “were just not showing any results,” he said in mid-March.

-snip-

Since the budget director made this assertion, reporters and op-ed writers have countered what Mulvaney said about Meals on Wheels, citing studies about the program’s effectiveness. Brown University professors Kali Thomas and Vincent Mor, for instance, found that a mere 1 percent increase in the number of adults over age 65 receiving home-based meals could save Medicaid $109 million annually by making it easier for the elderly to age in place.

Other studies find that having volunteers visit the home-bound makes them less lonely, less likely to suffer falls and less prone to depression — positive outcomes that trim health care costs. If Meals on Wheels generates these benefits, why cut spending on it?

http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/viewpoints-judging-the-value-of-meals-on-wheels/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=fd3a974172-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-fd3a974172-228635337